Self-test questions: Product Liability

. In which of the following situations will there be NO duty of care owed by the Defendant in respect of an omission?

Where control is exercised over the Claimant by the Defendant.

Where there is an assumption of responsibility for the Claimant's welfare by the Defendant.

Where the Defendant has created a risk.

Where the Defendant has adopted a risk.

Where the Defendant has failed to save a passer-by from a life-threatening situation.

. Candice walks past a small child who appears to be face down in a pond. She pauses and looks, then carries on her way without helping or assisting in any way. What is the correct statement in law?

Candice had a duty of care to help the child who was in obvious difficulties.

Candice had a Good Samaritan duty to help a child in need.

Candice owes the child a duty of care, having stopped to see what happened.

Candice owes no duty of care to the child in this situation.

Candice would only owe a duty of care to the child if she recognised them.

. Erica is a vulnerable prisoner in the custody of the police, having been arrested. No-one tells the police that Erica might be a suicide risk, but she does present in a vulnerable way which suggests she may be struggling with poor mental health. The police fail to check on Erica at regular intervals and Erica commits suicide in custody. Did the police owe Erica a duty of care?

Yes, the police owe a duty of care to every prisoner to ensure that they do not commit suicide.

Yes, the police owe a duty of care to take reasonable steps to assess whether Erica was a suicide risk, and her presentation suggested she was.

No, the police do not owe a duty of care to Erica, because the harm was self-inflicted.

No, the police do not owe a duty of care to Erica, because there is no duty on police to protect against every possible risk.

No, the police do not owe a duty of care to Erica as they had no information to suggest that she was a suicide risk.

. Melanie is the class teacher for 4 and 5 year olds. This includes a 4 year old girl Nina. Melanie takes the children out on to the school field to play, but then leaves them unattended when she is called to answer a telephone call. Nina wanders away from the school field and strays into the car park where Jyoti, a car driver is injured when they have to swerve to avoid her. Can Jyoti show that Melanie owed her a duty of care in this situation?

Yes, Melanie owes a duty of care as she had control or had assumed responsibility for Nina, and is therefore liable for her omission to properly supervise, which includes responsibility for the accident caused by Nina.

Yes, Melanie owes a duty of care to everyone who may come into contact with the children in her control.

No, Melanie does not owe a duty of care for the omission.

No, Nina's actions intervene here, and Melanie only owes a duty of care to Nina herself.

No, Melanie does not owe a duty of care to Jyoti. Her control or assumed responsibility for Nina, means that she is liable for her omission to properly supervise, but that duty is owed to Nina and does not extend further as it is too remote.

. Mike is a police officer crewed with Reg. They attend a callout outside a pub, and Mike is attacked by an assailant. Mike calls out for help and Reg ignores him, looking at his phone instead. Mike is punched in the head several times before managing to gain control of the assailant and arrest him. Mike suffers long term injuries as a result. Does Reg owe Mike a duty of care?

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that Mike would be hurt, so Reg owes a duty of care under Caparo v Dickman principles.

Yes, Reg has assumed a responsibility to "watch Mike's back" and so as his omission led to avoidable harm, he owes a duty of care.

No, Reg does not owe a duty of care as the harm was caused by a third party.

No, Reg does not owe a duty of care for an omission.

No, police officers do not owe a duty of care to avoid the commission of a crime.

. Dr. Newstead is driving along a road, when he sees a road traffic accident. Harika, one of the victims is lying bleeding at the side of the road. Dr. Newstead is in a hurry to get to a meeting, so keeps driving. Does Dr.Newstead owe a duty of care to Harika?

Yes, as a medical professional she has a duty to assist Harika.

Yes, as a medical professional she assumes responsibility for patients, so has a duty to assist Harika.

Yes, it is reasonably foreseeable that Harika will suffer harm, therefore the doctor has a duty to act.

No, there is no legal duty to Harika when the doctor is just a passer-by.

No, the medical professional-patient duty of care does not apply even if the doctor has assumed responsibility.

. The fire service attend a fire at Rianna's shop caused by Joanna who left a cigarette unattended. In fighting the fire, the fire chief instructs a fireman to turn off the sprinkler system which results in the fire spreading further and faster through the building. As a result, £100,000 worth of damage is caused and evidence is brought before the Court to suggest that had the sprinklers been left turned on the damage would have been just £50,000. Does the fire service owe Rianna a duty of care?

Yes, the fire service owes Rianna a duty of care and would be liable for the full £100,000 of damage caused.

Yes, the fire service owes Rianna a duty of care as reasonable professionals, but can argue that Joanna is wholly responsible for the accident.

Yes, the fire service owes Rianna a duty of care as they attended the emergency and made the situation worse, so would be liable for £50,000 of damage.

No, the fire service does not owe a duty of care for a pure omission.

No, the fire was caused by Joanna's negligence and she is liable for the full extent of the damage.

. In which of the following situations will there NOT be a duty of care imposed on a Defendant in respect of the actions of a third party?

Special relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant

Special relationship between the Defendant and the third party (eg. control or supervision).

Third party creates a source of danger that is "sparked" by the Claimant and the Defendant fails to act.

Defendant creates a source of danger that is "sparked" by a third party.

Defendant fails to take steps to abate a known danger created by a third party.

. Bobbi employs Wanda to do her gardening while she is out at work and gives her access to her garden shed to enable her to use the tools. Bobbi specifically asks Wanda to lock the shed and post the keys through the letterbox when she has finished the work. Wanda fails to lock up the shed, leaving the shed door wide open. Before Bobbi returns home, burglars enter the shed and steal all of her tools. Does Wanda owe Bobbi a duty in relation to the burglars' actions?

Yes, Wanda owes a duty to Bobbi due to the contractual relationship between them.

Yes, it was reasonably foreseeable that burglars might steal the items from the shed, therefore Wanda owes Bobbi a duty.

No, there is no liability for a pure omission here.

No, the burglars' actions are a novus actus interveniens/intervening act.

No, Bobbi cannot owe a duty in respect of the actions of a third party.

. Stephen is a violent man with many criminal convictions who lives next door to Dave, both are council tenants. Stephen is called to a meeting with the council about his anti-social behaviour, which included making death threats towards Dave. During the meeting he was threatened with eviction if his behaviour did not stop. Stephen left the meeting and upon his return home he immediately attacked Dave. Did the council owe Dave a duty to warn him and the police of the potential danger posed by Stephen?

Yes, the council owed a duty to Dave as they had assumed responsibility for Dave's safety.

Yes, the council owed a duty to Dave as it was reasonably foreseeable that Stephen would cause him harm.

Yes, the council owed a duty to Dave as they had caused the danger by having the meeting.

No, the council did not owe a duty to Dave as the harm was caused by a third party, Stephen over whom they had no control.

No, the council had not made a direct undertaking to assume responsibility so no duty was owed to Dave.

. One of the exceptions to the rule that a Defendant does not owe a duty in relation to the actions of a third party is where there is a special relationship between the Defendant and the third party. Which of the following cases is the classic example of a Defendant assuming responsibility for a third party's actions due to a special relationship?

Smith v Littlewoods [1987]

Stansbie v Troman [1955]

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Poole Borough Council v GN [2019]

. Toni leaves her lorry unattended at a beer festival with the keys in the ignition. During the festival, Gary (who has under the influence of alcohol having consumed many beers) spots the unlocked lorry and decides to drive it home, dangerously, and swerves into a brick wall causing significant damage. Does Toni owe a duty to the owner of the brick wall?

Yes, this is an example of a Defendant creating a source of danger which is then sparked by a third party taking the vehicle, so a duty is owed.

Yes, the Defendant failed to take steps to abate a known danger (the risk of a third party taking the vehicle and causing damage), so a duty is owed.

No, there is no duty owed in relation to the Defendant's omission as the damage is too remote and not foreseeable.

No, the lorry is not considered to be a source of danger here, such as would give rise to a risk creating a duty to be owed.

No, the third party's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act.

. Jocelyn owns an empty property which is broken into by unknown third parties who started a fire which spread to Abigail's house next door causing extensive damage. Jocelyn had installed security cameras while her property was empty. Does Jocelyn owe Abigail a duty here?

Yes, this is an example of a Defendant creating a source of danger which is then sparked by a third party breaking in, so a duty is owed.

Yes, the Defendant failed to take steps to abate a known danger (the risk of a third party breaking in and causing damage), so a duty is owed.

No, there is no duty owed, as the danger was neither known nor foreseeable.

No, the property itself is not considered to be a source of danger here, such as would give rise to a risk creating a duty to be owed.

No, the third party's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act.

. Clive owns a mattress warehouse which is regularly broken into by vandals. On one occasion they set fire to some mattresses stored in the warehouse and the fire spreads to Vele's warehouse next door causing damage. Vele has complained to Clive on a number of occasions about people breaking in and causing trouble, but Clive has not responded. Does Clive owe Vele a duty here?

Yes, this is an example of a Defendant creating a source of danger which is then sparked by a third party breaking in, so a duty is owed.

Yes, the Defendant failed to take steps to abate a known danger (the risk of a third party breaking in and causing damage), so a duty is owed.

No, there is no duty owed, as the danger was neither known nor foreseeable.

No, the property itself is not considered to be a source of danger here, such as would give rise to a risk creating a duty to be owed.

No, the third party's actions act as a novus actus interveniens/intervening act.

. Etienne owns a plot of land next door to Jeremy. A tree on the edge of Etienne's property is struck by lightning and catches fire. Etienne chops down the tree but decides to let the fire burn itself out naturally. Unfortunately, the wind reignites the fire and it spreads next door, damaging Jeremy's shed. Does Etienne owe Jeremy a duty in this situation?

Yes, Etienne owes Jeremy a duty as he has adopted the risk and therefore has a positive duty to try and deal with it.

Yes, Etienne owes Jeremy a duty as he is exercising control over his own and the neighbour's property.

No, Etienne does not owe a duty to Jeremy as the fire had natural causes (the lightning).

No, Etienne does not owe a duty for a pure omission.

No, Etienne acted as the reasonable person would in this situation and the damage was not foreseeable.

Quiz Content